Many Democratic leaders have been wary of making a full-throated push for such a ban since House Democrats were swept from the majority in 1994 – a bruising loss some observers have linked to the Democrats’ gun reforms earlier that year.

But Rep. John Larson (Conn.) said Tuesday that Congress shouldn’t shy away from the issue simply because it’s tough politically.

House Democrats including Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Carolyn McCarthy of New York, both long-time gun control advocates, point to the shooting in Colorado and other mass shootings as proof that the country’s gun laws are insufficient. Monday Blumenauer took to the floor to accuse the National Rifle Association of political bullying. He pointed to the shooting as a renewed opportunity “to deal with an epidemic of gun violence” in the United States.

“The NRA argues that all we need is for existing gun laws to be enforced while they systematically set about to dismantle which laws we have,” Blumenaue said. “I continue to feel that there’s no reason to permit armor-piercing, cop-killer bullets to be sold like Tic-tac’s, that automatic weapons should be available over the counter with 100-bullet magazines like killer in Colorado had, that facilitate such sprees.”

***

[G]un control advocates tell another story as well. The president has shied away from the gun debate, they said, out of political expedience. The Obama who spoke at that church rally isn’t the same politician who chose soft-touch responses to the mass shootings in Tucson, Ariz., and, most recently, in Aurora, Colo.

“There is no question he’s softened on the issue,” said Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor who focused on the unwillingness of Democrats to take on the gun lobby in his new book, “A Nation of Wusses.” “But in fairness to the president, you don’t see many other Democrats rushing to the floor saying we need to have legislation.”…

“He has been supportive of national policy until he took office,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “I don’t know how much it is the influence of the gun lobby directly, as it is the kind of political calculus. He had an agenda and this was not at the top of his agenda. He needed to create coalitions of support for things like health care and he didn’t want to risk fragmenting that support in any way.”

But as national incidents of gun violence flared with no major responses, groans have grown louder.

***

On his visit to Aurora, Barack Obama spoke a few half-hearted words—he might have wished he could venture more—on the topic. His rival, Mitt Romney, continued simply to pander to the rich coffers of the National Rifle Association. In Washington, you can be assured that hardly anyone will do more, and not simply because members of Congress “don’t have the spine to act,” the verdict of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was murdered and son was wounded in a gun attack on a commuter train 17 years ago. The stark reality is that the half-century battle for gun control has been lost politically—again, and again, now perhaps permanently. And that outcome seems impervious to any new outrage perpetrated in the increasingly grim randomness of America as a recurring, movable shooting gallery…

Aboard Air Force One, on a journey to console the victims and their families in Colorado, Obama’s press secretary said the president’s focus was on enforcing “existing law.” And you can’t expect him to launch a futile demand for tougher gun laws that would never pass the House or Senate. Nor should he pursue a course of faux courage that would represent a heedless disregard for everything else at stake in 2012—and that would sacrifice his chances in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, thereby shattering the hope for a progressive presidency empowering the forces of reaction to impose their will across the board.

The psychic satisfaction of being pure on gun control is not worth losing the election—and letting Romney further pack a Supreme Court that has already ruled five to four that the Constitution confers an individual right to own firearms despite state and local gun laws. If this happened, things would only get worse.

***

These days, people are trying to use the Aurora killings as a pretext to criticize America’s gun culture or to call for stricter gun control laws. (This doesn’t happen after European or Asian spree killings.) Personally, I’ve supported tighter gun control laws. But it’s not clear that those laws improve public safety. Researchers reviewing the gun control literature for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, were unable to show the laws are effective.

And gun control laws are probably even less germane in these cases. Rampage killers tend to be meticulous planners. If they can’t find an easy way to get a new gun, they’ll surely find a way to get one of the 200 million guns that already exist in this country. Or they’ll use a bomb or find another way.

Looking at guns, looking at video games — that’s starting from the wrong perspective. People who commit spree killings are usually suffering from severe mental disorders. The response, and the way to prevent future episodes, has to start with psychiatry, too.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Nova, I don’t know about Fred, but you played some tunes the other night, old Fleetwood Mac, Ten Years After, and Bill Frisell, that I hadn’t heard in a while… they reminded me of… well… things I hadn’t thought of in a long time. I really appreciated it.

Well, that just makes me feel good. I used to dj at a student run radio station in college, and we had complete programming freedom. I loved seeing the phone light up when listeners liked what I was playing.

I’ve always wondered why they have no hesitation insulting what has to be at least 50% of their possible viewing/listening/purchasing audience. And why do they think they are authorities on anything other than “entertaining”?

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Again, just theorizing here, but many of them feel so “cultured.” They travel the world & meet very important people. They feel so learned that they must teach us poor ignorant masses what is really going on in the world.

I will tell you what I DO admire. Someone like Sandra Bullock. We probably don’t have the same philosophy, but I’ve never heard her get up on a soapbox. Yet, she always seems to be one of the first to give large amounts of money to people in need. She’ll send a mil to Haiti, or victims of Katrina, whatever. She doesn’t do a Sean Penn, though. BIG difference.

“HURT: An open letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn, and Warner Brothers”

John Hurt was BRILLIANT! He went OFF on Hollywood, those named in particular, for the violence they’ve been pedaling and then having the gall to say it wasn’t their fault while thy counted their ‘blood money’! He laid it out!

The head of the House Democratic Caucus said Tuesday that Congress should “absolutely” ban the sale of assault weapons in the wake of last week’s fatal shooting rampage in Colorado.

Norway bans automatic weapons, and high powered hand guns, yet Anders Breivik was still able to able to slaughter 77 people last summer. Automatic weapons are 19th century technology, which can easily be produced using items found in your local Home Depot.

I’m sure it must have been mentioned somewhere here, but don’t forget Bill O’Reilly’s idiotic diatribe today. He came across as ill-informed and completely clueless. He was just flat wrong in some of the things he was saying.

Under the ban, it would have been illegal for James Holmes to purchase the deadliest of the weapons he used: the AR-15 assault rifle…

….have seen a picture of the assailant’s AR in the “Daily Mail” laying on the ground with a 30 round clip in it. This gun would have been no problem to buy even with the AWB in place. Even if this gun met the ban….all Holmes would have had to do was drop one of three features..collapsible stock…high capacity mag (which could have been bought separately)….. or suppressor(which could have been bought separately)….if bayonet lug is the other feature besides suppressor…..then fine…Holmes gun had no bayonet lug.
It is just plain bullsh!t to say Holmes could not have purchased an AR-15 with the AWB in place.

Bottom line:
…..I was able to get an assault rifle with the ban….and without the ban as long as I passed the background check and had the money.

…the only real difference I have seen in purchasing firearms period since the AWB was lifted is that the prices have gone sky high.

To top the whole thing off….not one of these “let’s ban guns” cheerleaders has shown any evidence what-so-ever that stricter gun laws actually reduce crime rates……as a matter of fact…..they increase them.

The psychic satisfaction of being pure on gun control is not worth losing the election—and letting Romney further pack a Supreme Court that has already ruled five to four that the Constitution confers an individual right to own firearms despite state and local gun laws. If this happened, things would only get worse.

Yes, heaven forbid a president appoint SC Justices who actually uphold the Constitution.

Looking at guns, looking at video games — that’s starting from the wrong perspective. People who commit spree killings are usually suffering from severe mental disorders. The response, and the way to prevent future episodes, has to start with psychiatry, too.

If psychiatry can’t help an Obama-sucking turd like you, Brooks, how can it possibly help the more violence-prone wack-jobs out there?

This is the heart and soul of Democrat political strategy. Hide what they really believe and only do what’s politically expedient. If they thought they could get away with it they’d ban guns in a heartbeat.

They have no principles beyond staying in power. This is the face of political corruption.

interesting to hear Scott Walker. thinks mitt should ditch the podium, get into the crowd with a mike. stir things up. goes on to say that just sitting back and letting the economy become the issue isn’t enough.